The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10/28/2008 Item #12B Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 12B October 28,2008 Page 1 of 5 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: Item Summary: 128 This item to be heard at 100 p,m For the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney regarding settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures In the pending litigation case of Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker v. Collier County, et al.. Case No OS-0066-CA now pending in the Twentieth JudiCial Circuit in and for Collier County. Florida. 10/28/2008 900 00 AM Meeting Date: Approved By Jacqueline W. Hubbard Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 10/14/20083:32 PM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 10120/2008 5: 11 PM Approved By OMS Coordinator Applications Analyst Date _. Administrative Services Information Technology 10/21/20088:12 AM Approved By John A. Yonkosky Director of the Office of Management Date County Manager's Office Office of fYianagement & Budget 10121/200812:07 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County flflanager's Office 10/21/2008 1 :00 PM - file://C:\A2"endaTest\Exnort\ 115-0ctoher%202R.o;(120200R\ 12.%20COI JNTY%20ATTOR... 10/22/200R JONES FOSTER JOHNSTON & STUBBS, FA Attorneys and Counselors Agenda Item No. 12B October 28, 2008 Page 2 of 5 Flagler ('('nkr Tower, Suite UOO 505 Suuth Flagler Dril'C' Wrst Palm Beach. Florida 33.4-01 Telephone (5M) 659.3000 Moi/ing ..\ddres.\ Post OLtke 130:1. 3~ 75 Wr.~r Palm 13eadl. Fklrida 33-102-3-175 Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire Direct Dial: 561-650-0464 Direct Fax: 561-650-0422 E-Mail: mcooper@jones-foster.com September 23, 2008 SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esquire Col1ier County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail, 8th Floor Naples, FL 34112 Re: Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker v. Collier County Our File No. 25239.1 Dear Mr. K1atzkow: This letter is to confirm the settlement discussions that took place at our meeting with regard to the above-referenced matter. There are a number of proceedings which are currently pending. These include the following: 1. CEB Case No.'s 2006-16,2006-17 and 2006-18. 2. An appeal from the CEB proceedings, Case No. 08-66 CA, in the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida. 3. A Special Master proceeding pursuant to F.S. S 70.51 - the Land Use and Enviromnental Dispute Resolution Act and the appeal therefrom, Case No. 07~ 1634 CA, in the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida. 4. A claim filed pursuant to F.S. ~ 70.001. This offer of settlement is made to resolve all of the above matters. Factual Background - History To assist in your evaluation of the above matter, the following factual background is helpful. · 2002 - Blocker Acquisition and CEB Notice. Our clients, Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker, acquired the Shell Trailer Park located in Irnmokalee in the year 2002. They were thereafter served with a CEB Notice of Violation in 2006 asserting that the trailer park is illegal and in violation of zoning. Since then, there have been a number of 1l'Ww.jol1 es-fos fer. com ....- -..-----,..-. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esquire Collier County Attorney September 23,2008 Page 2 Agenda item No. 128 Octuber 28. 2008 Page 3 of 5 code enforcement proceedings, dispute resolution proceedings, and other proceedings as noted above. . Early Zoning. I understand that the Shell Trailer Park has been in Irnmokalee since the late 50's or early 1960's. The County's records are sketchy. Hurricane Donna (1960) destroyed the Property Appraiser's records. We have also been unable to locate the text of the early zoning codes, which may have been destroyed in the hurricane. What we were able to locate is a zoning map indicating that, in the early days, this area ofImmokalee was zoned C-3 commercial and light industrial. We think that the zoning text involved "hierarchal" zoning, which would have allowed lesser uses such as mobile home parks. · 1980 Amendment. In 1970, the Immokalee zoning ordinance was amended to rezone this area I-Industrial. At that time, mobile home parks were clearly not allowed. . Issue in CEB Proceeding. In 1991, the Immokalee overlay district was created. The 1991 LDC provides for continuation of non-conforming uses. Because we cannot prove the early text, the County staff has taken the position that the park is an illegal non-conforming use and does not qualify for grandfathering. The issue the Blockers wanted to have heard before the CEB initially was whether the grandfathering provisions of the LDC allow the Blockers to continue their use. The CEB sided with County staff and ruled that since the Blockers could not prove the Park was once legally permitted, the park is not grandfathered and the Blockers must rezone (which requires a comp plan amendment) or teardown. This is an issue on appeal to the circuit court. · 2002 SIP Procedures. In 2002, the ImmokaJee overlay subdistrict was adopted. The most important provision of the 2002 amendments was the adoption of Sec. 2.03.G.6, Non-conforming Mobile Home Park Overlay Subdistrict. This provides that: The property owners of all nOll-conforming mobile home developments/parks that were in existence before November 13, 1991, i,e. the pre-date Ordinance 91-102, the Land Development Code, shall be required to submit a site improvement plan (SIP) meeting the standards set forth below [1 J by January 9, 2003 or thereafter [2] within the time frame set forth in an order of the Code Enforcement Board finding the violation of this section or [3] by the date set forth in a compliance or settlement af!reement entered into between Collier County and the property owner acknowledging such Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esquire Collier County Attorney September 23, 2008 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 128 October 28, 2008 Page 4 of 5 .. violation and also establishing the date by which the violation would be cured to the SIP submittal process set forth below. This section appears to cover settlements in Option 3 for all non-conforming uses - whether legal or not. Settlement Offer This mobile home park has been in Immokalee for well over 50 years. If the Blockers are required to tear down the mobile home park, many families will be displaced without alternate housing. We think it is in all the parties' best interest to resolve the situation. Settlement agreements are encouraged in the Sec. 2.03.G.6 and are also legally permissible under any of the other proceedings currently underway - i.e., a ~ 70.001 or S 70.51 proceeding. The Blockers propose a settlement under Sec. 2.03.G.6 to bring the Park up to the current standards by way of the SIP procedure found in Section 10.02.05F of the LDC. In addition to bringing it up to standards, the Blockers will provide substantial landscaping to buffer the residences from the industrial uses. The County would then acknowledge that the Park is non-conforming, but allowed to remain under the SIP settlement procedure or by declaration of vested rights allowed in other parts of the LDC. Lastly, the Blockers understand that the County has incurred some costs in prosecuting the code violations. Therefore, they would like to offer the sum of $5,000.00 to pay for the administrative costs of the code violations. We understand that CEB fines have accrued, while the proceedings have been going on. However, CEB fines are designed to encourage code compliance - not to punish the offender. The Blockers have engaged in lawfully pennitted processes to review the CEB decisions and to engage the County in a settlement process. To enforce accruing fines while the Blockers have sought review is punitive in nature - not compensatory to the County. We think it is more fair and the appropriate civic goal for the County to recover administrative costs - not to punish the Blockers. The Blockers would rather see the money go to fixing up the mobile home park to benefit the tenants and the Immokalee community. This is a philosophy which I hope the County would embrace. The money that the Blockers are going to spend for the fix up is substantial. We believe that this would be a "win-win-win" situation for all concerned - the tenants, the Blockers and the County. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esquire Collier County Attorney September 23,2008 Page 4 ';genda item 1\10. 128 October 28. 2008 Page 5 of 5 , If this concept is agreeable, the final settlement would be subject a more formal written document which is acceptable to both parties. We appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A. MLC:smrn cc: Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker P:\DOCS\25239\OOOOI \L TR\13 W3949 .DOC klatzkow re settlement discussions